Advances in plasma processing have provided for growth in the semiconductor industry. Before a plasma processing system (such as a plasma cluster tool) is set up at a customer's site, a series of quality control tests may be performed. Data from these quality control tests may be collected and stored for future analysis.
Generally, a multitude of quality control tests may be performed on the plasma cluster tool and its various components before the plasma cluster tool is sent to a customer from a manufacturer. As discussed herein, a plasma cluster tool refers to a plasma processing system that may have a plurality of modules (e.g., processing module, transfer module, etc.) and may have a plurality of subsystems (e.g., RF match, gas box, TCP match, bias match, etc.). For ease of discussion, the term “component” will be used to refer to an atomic or a multi-part assembly in a plasma cluster tool. Thus, a component may be as simple as a gas line or may be as complex as the entire process module. A multi-part component (such as a process module) may be formed from other multi-part components (such as a vacuum system, a gas system, a power supply system, etc), which may in turn be formed from other multi-part or atomic components.
The various components of a plasma cluster tool may be manufactured by more than one party. For example, a manufacturer of plasma cluster tool, such as Lam Research Corporation of Fremont, Calif., typically utilizes components from a number of third-party suppliers in the manufacturing of a plasma cluster tool. In fact, such practice is standard in the semiconductor processing equipment field since it permits companies to focus on their strengths while delegating tasks outside of their fields of interest or expertise to other companies.
Currently, a standard testing framework for components does not exist. The tests may be performed by the manufacturer and/or by a third-party. Tests performed internally allow the manufacturer some control on the testing methodology. However, tests that may have been outsourced to a third-party give the manufacturer limited or no control over the tests that are being performed.
To facilitate discussion, FIG. 1A shows an example of a plasma cluster tool with a process module 102 and a transfer module 111. Within process module 102 are components 106 and 108 (e.g., gas box and RF match). Attached to process module 102 is a test fixture 112 (e.g., LamWorks), which may enable the entire process module 102 to be tested. Additional test fixtures (e.g., LamWorks-based test fixture 104 and Nyker Labview test fixture 110) are attached to components 106 and 108.
As discussed herein, a test fixture refers to hardware with a software interface that allows a component to be tested in a simulated processing environment. For example, a test fixture for an AC/DC box may enable the tester to test the wiring connection, the power components, etc. In some instances, a test fixture may not exist for a component. In FIG. 1A, a test fixture is not available for transfer module 111. Thus, testing transfer module 111 may have to be performed manually using paper procedures. With paper procedures, the quality of the test may be dependent upon a tester's skills and discretion. Furthermore, the procedures may be subjected to the tester's interpretation. In some cases, a tester may not always perform all steps completely. In other cases, a tester may fabricate data. Thus, test results may be inconsistent and lack integrity.
FIG. 1B shows a chart of the components in FIG. 1A and the testing architecture associated with these components. For process module 102, test fixture 112 (e.g., LamWorks) produced internally by the manufacturer is attached. Tests that are performed using test fixtures created by the manufacturer may allow the manufacturer some control of the testing methodology that may be used. In an example, the manufacturer may be able to determine the control logic that each test fixture may employ in testing the components. Further, since each test fixture may be able to log and store the data (e.g., in a SQL database) on the test fixture, the manufacturer may have access to the electronic version of the data that are gathered, thus enabling the manufacturer the ability to manipulate the data for analysis. However, the reporting, or access to the report, may be limited to an intranet or a paper printout.
In another example, test fixture 106 (e.g., LamWorks) attached to component 106 (e.g., RF Match) is internally created but may have been sent off-site to a third-party to test the component. Even though the manufacturer may provide the test fixtures, the manufacturer generally may have limited or no control over the tests that may be performed off-site by the third party. Further, the manufacturer may be unable to readily access the test data for tests performed off-site. Instead, the manufacturer may only receive paper printouts or image copies of the test data.
In some situations, testing may be performed utilizing test fixtures that may have been created by third-party suppliers. In an example, test fixture 110 (e.g., Nyker using LabView) attached to component 108 (e.g., gas box) may be created by a third-party. Since the test fixtures are created by a third party, the manufacturers may not have control over the control logic that may be employed for the test fixtures. In these situations, the manufacturers are usually dependent upon the testers using test fixtures created by third-party suppliers to perform good tests and collect relevant data on the components. Further, the manufacturers may usually have limited access to the test data performed off-site, especially if the data is provided to the manufacturer in a paper or image format. As a result, the manufacturer may experience difficulties manipulating the data for analysis.
Generally, the control system may employ different control logic during the testing and production environment. As a result, the test environment may be unable to replicate what may happen in the production environment. For example, it is not unusual for changes to be occurring in the control system as a plasma cluster tool is being manufactured. However, the changes may not always be propagated to all the testers. As a result, the testers may not have all the data to create an environment that resembles the production environment. Further, there may have been changes in the various components, but the manufacturer may not have been informed to accommodate the changes. As a result, changes may unnoticeable until the plasma cluster tool is in the field.
In some cases, a component, such as transfer module 111, may not have a test fixture associated with the component. In situations where there are no test fixtures, the tester may have to rely on paper procedures to perform tests on a component. The test methodology for this situation is usually dependent upon the skill and knowledge of the tester. Furthermore, the procedures may be subjected to interpretation by the tester. Also, the tester may not always perform all steps completely. Thus, the data collected may be dependent upon the discretion of the tester. For example, the tester may choose not to perform a thorough test (such as skipping some of the steps) or the tester may choose to bypass the test and fabricate the data. Thus, test results may be inconsistent and may lack integrity. Manufacturers may have difficulties validating the accuracy of the test data, especially since the test data may be stored on paper.
Since a wide range of test methodologies may be employed, manufacturers may be unable to provide their customers with the assurance that consistent quality has been employed in testing the plasma cluster tools and components. Given the lack of testing standards, the data that may be gathered may differ in substance and quality depending upon the testing methodology and the tester. Also, an integrated test is not possible since a tester is usually limited to the component he/she is testing. Further, the reports that are produced from the testing may vary by format and substance. In an example, manufacturers may have access to the electronic test data if the testing is done internally. In another example, manufacturers may only have access to paper copy or an image copy of the test data if the testing is done off-site.
Given that test data may not be in a format that can be easily manipulated for data analysis, manufacturers may not have the resources or time available to dedicate to analyzing test data. Thus, unless a problem is obvious, test data may not be analyzed unless a problem arises in the production environment. Even then, the lack of effective tools to analyze the data may make debugging a problem an overwhelming task and traceability a challenge.